The Return of the Shadow Warriors

American Thinker, by Daniel Ashman, Feb. 24, 2017:

Michael Flynn was fired from the Trump administration following vague, somewhat concerning, leaks about a phone conversation he had with the Russian ambassador. The intelligence community (IC) leaked this conversation to damage President Trump, who had previously tweeted, “Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?”

These are glimpses into the soft civil war taking place between the IC and the democratically elected president.

shadow-wThis fight should be completely unsurprising. Kenneth Timmerman, in 2007, wrote a fabulous book called Shadow Warriors, which documented bureaucrats in the State Department and CIA, i.e. shadow warriors, nakedly harming President Bush. What Timmerman had the foresight to catalog years ago now serves as an explanatory backdrop to what is happening between Trump and the IC.

When IC people attack Flynn, it is not safe to take them at their word. They could be working for political reasons — or simply personal ambition. Timmerman provides many recent historical examples which show them doing exactly this. The IC has damaged their own credibility.

One example is the 2005 confirmation hearings for John Bolton as ambassador to the UN. The Democrats blocked Bolton’s nomination due to a confrontation he had with a State Department analyst, Christian Westermann. Democrats claimed Bolton’s actions had “grave and far-reaching implications for American credibility”.

What was Bolton’s horrible deed? He had written a speech, “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” to communicate the threats Americans faced from biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, from actors beyond North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Bolton stated that Cuba had a biological weapons program and shared data with other states.

Westermann, based on the intelligence work of Ana Montes, went behind Bolton’s back to stop him. The problem is that Ana Montes was convicted in 2002 of espionage for Cuba. She avoided a death penalty by plea bargaining down to twenty-five years in jail.

Prior to conviction, Ana had been the top analyst on Cuba for the entire American IC. After her conviction, her disinformation remained in the system. Westermann was relying on the work of a Cuban spy to subvert Bolton. In response, Bolton had a frank conversation with Westermann.

In the confirmation hearings, Democrats and Westermann had turned the whole issue around on Bolton. Bolton was punished for speaking the truth about Cuba, and punished for confronting a bureaucrat in the IC about carrying water for a Cuban spy.

Like Bolton, Flynn has a reputation for calling stupid people out on stupid behavior. Maybe the IC took out Flynn because they are true patriots who think he posed a risk to America. Or maybe it’s because they didn’t like his political orientation and policy goals. Maybe it’s simply because he was going to tell the truth and make them look bad. One thing is certain, ascribing nefarious motivations to their actions is not a conspiracy theory, as Timmerman has documented this type of behavior.

The IC uses various disinformation methods to achieve their nefarious goals. One example Timmerman gives covers how CIA man Stephen Kappes hid important intelligence from the American people.

Kappes was in the CIA for over two decades so this is exactly the sort of “career IC” man one would expect to be nonpolitical. As deputy director, he was the second most powerful man in the CIA, so one would hope he would put patriotic love for America first.

The Bush administration had obtained media from an Arab television station which showed how the war had been effective at stopping terrorists. Bush wanted to share the video with the American people.

Timmerman writes what Kappes response was, “You’ve got to tell them they can’t use that tape unless they want to answer to me for getting one of my guys killed”. This would have been a laudable reason for Kappes to stop the information from coming out. The only problem was that Kappes was lying.

The CIA director and Bush appointee Porter Goss first told Bush not to publish the tape, to protect Kappes’s source. Then when Goss learned Kappes had lied, he went back to Bush to explain what had happened and clear release of the tape.

Bush lost trust in Goss. Only a couple of years later, in 2006, Goss was forced out of the CIA. Meanwhile, Kappes served as number two at the CIA into 2010. One lie from Kappes had served to hurt Republicans, prevent the truth from getting out to the public, hurt Goss, destabilized the administration, and furthered his own career. What a success! …for a shadow warrior.

Kappes’ deception figures as a relatively simple one in Timmerman’s book, in this instance anyway, as Kappes pops up fighting the shadow war numerous times.

Timmerman also recounts the Valerie Plame affair, which shows how the CIA carries out sophisticated psychological operations against America.

As readers will recall, CIA agent Valerie Plame arranged for her husband, Joe Wilson, to go to Niger to investigate whether Iraq was trying to buy uranium. Remarkably, Wilson was not bound to a confidentiality agreement. After the Iraq War started, Wilson went public bashing Bush. When Republicans defended themselves, Valerie Plame’s name came out, and Republicans got scorched again for leaking the name of a CIA agent

As then-senator Zell Miller wrote, “The rules on agents are clear. They can’t purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail. But their spouse can!”

Wilson’s public attack on Bush wasn’t even truthful. Wilson focused on one piece of evidence, some forged documents, to discredit the idea that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. He completely bypassed the fact that an Iraqi delegation had gone to Niger in 1999 headed by Iraqi nuclear expert Wissam al-Zahawie. Wilson used a half-truth to deceive.

This CIA operation has permanently changed America. Many Americans now “know” that Bush lied. The Republican brand was damaged forever. And efforts to employ violence in self-defense against dictators working to procure uranium have been undercut.

What Trump is facing from the IC is nothing new. It is simply Shadow Warriors Part Two. As Timmerman has documented, a significant number of people in the IC, the shadow warriors, have a history of subverting America and democratically elected presidents, for political reasons. Anyone who says this is impossible is lying or ignorant of history.

Given the IC’s rabid lying attacks on Bush, there is no particular reason to believe them now. The attacks on Trump must especially be taken with skepticism as they come from anonymous sources, are vague, and merely hint at wrongdoing. Until the IC gives hard evidence that Flynn or Trump are Russian agents, these attacks say more about the IC than Trump. It suggests that certain shadow warriors perceive Trump as a threat to their well-being, and that they don’t like Trump’s policy stances. Never mind that he won the election in a free country.

One recurring theme in Shadow Warriors is that under the Bush administration, the shadow warriors didn’t face consequences. Westermann was not fired for spreading Cuban disinformation, nor for his political attempts to harm Bolton. Kappes was not fired for lying to Goss. And Plame actually got rich and famous.

Trump has approached these situations entirely differently from Bush. He has called out the IC for illegal subversive behavior in a direct and public manner.

There is a wonderful thread on Reddit in the Donald Trump forum (because the generic politics section of Reddit has banished Trump supporters), where users hypothesize that Flynn and Trump lured the IC into leaking Flynn’s private conversation on purpose, “In a single day, the deep state went from tinfoil hat conspiracy to common public knowledge. Amazing.”

It is impossible to know what Trump and Flynn’s intentions were, but these ideas are not so far-fetched. Shadow warriors exist. And by baiting them into leaks which self-expose, Trump would merely be using the same play that Plame and Wilson used when they baited Republicans into outing her, only this time the shadow warriors were the victim. Either way, Trump’s response to the IC has been strong.

As Zell Miller realized over a decade ago, “Something has to be done. We can’t let the CIA become the domestic dirty tricks shop, with Republican and Democratic agents each trying to pull down their opposing presidents.” Kenneth Timmerman has gone to great lengths to document these past abuses, which explain the current situation, and predict the future. A man ignorant of shadow warriors is but a wounded lion, staggering as the IC hyenas stalk from the shadows.

***

Leaky John Brennan

john_o-1-_brennan_2015-640x330

The American Spectator, by George Neumayr, February 17, 2017

Out of hatred for McGovernite liberals, a Republican president in the 1970s broke the law. Now those aging radicals break the law out of hatred for a Republican president.

Nested within intelligence agencies, they have fed a series of criminal leaks to a press corps that functions like an anti-Trump dirty tricks operation.

Donald Trump has publicly speculated that former CIA director John Brennan is one of the criminal leakers. In January, he tweeted out, “Was this the leaker of Fake News?” Trump has now charged the Justice Department with investigating “low-life leakers” in the government.

Former CIA analyst Tony Shaffer also suspects Brennan as one of the leakers. He said on Fox Business Network that the leaks which forced Michael Flynn out can be laid “squarely at the feet of” Brennan, among other embittered Obama aides.

What we know is that intelligence agencies taped Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador, and we know that the contents of the call were leaked to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who is a de facto stenographer for political liberals at the CIA. We also know that Brennan has made no secret of his opposition to Trump and Flynn. By opposing Brennan’s overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood and his refusal to grapple with the spread of Islamic terrorism, Flynn became enemy number one in the eyes of Obama holdovers at the CIA.

All of this gives the Justice Department ample reason to focus on Brennan. He had the means and motive to commit a crime.

“When I hear [former CIA head] John Brennan with the venom that seems to be in his voice after Donald Trump was elected president, it’s not hard to imagine that in the intelligence community, Donald Trump has his enemies and those enemies are not as restrained as they ought to be,” said Congressman Steve King on MSNBC.

Indeed, John Brennan brought with him to the CIA a coterie of political radicals and left-wing academics and gave them plum positions from which to leak to the press. So dedicated was Brennan to open political activism that he would walk the halls of the CIA in an LGBTQ “rainbow lanyard,” reports Bill Gertz of the Washington Times.

According to Gertz, Brennan turned his left-wing hires into “operatives” by fiddling with standards at the Directorate of Operations. These political hacks disguised as apolitical operatives had no more business receiving high-security clearances than Brennan himself did.

Recall the astounding admission Brennan once made at a “diversity” conference in 2016: that he thought he had “screwed” up his chances to enter the CIA after undergoing a polygraph test which smoked out his support for the American Communist Party during the Cold War. This sounds like a parody, but it isn’t. As he recounted:

This was back in 1980, and I thought back to a previous election where I voted, and I voted for the Communist Party candidate… I froze, because I was getting so close to coming into CIA and said, “OK, here’s the choice, John. You can deny that, and the machine is probably going to go, you know, wacko, or I can acknowledge it and see what happens.”… I said I was neither Democratic or Republican, but it was my way, as I was going to college, of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change. I said I’m not a member of the Communist Party, so the polygrapher looked at me and said, “OK,” and when I was finished with the polygraph and I left and said, “Well, I’m screwed.”

Unfortunately, he wasn’t. He entered the CIA, rose to its highest rank, and then salted the agency with fellow radicals, whose hatred for the “system” now takes the form of sabotaging the Trump administration.

Brennan and his leakers see no irony in becoming what they once opposed. In the 1970s, they cheered as the Church committee castigated the CIA for breaking laws. Now they use the CIA for their own dark arts and receive applause from ACLU-style liberals. They have gone from voting for communists to taping Russians, from fearing the unaccountable power of the system to wielding it shamelessly.

They marched through the institutions, stayed long enough to find the exits, and now booby-trap them as they file out. The trail of McGovernite liberalism ends as it began, in lawlessness, with a departing CIA director who behaved no differently than Daniel Ellsberg.

Also see:

The Latest Rundown on the Mike Flynn Deep State Hit Job

mike-flynn_-hit_-job_-run_-down_-sized-770x415xc-1PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, FEBRUARY 15, 2017:

Obama officials and the establishment media continue to wave the scalp of resigned National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and trying to squeeze every last drop of anti-Trump controversy out of the matter.

As I had said privately, Flynn was not long for remaining as NSA. It’s not because he’s a bad guy, and accusations that he was compromised by Russian intelligence are absurd as the Trump dossier Buzzfeed published last month. It’s just that Flynn wasn’t ready for prime time. Hopefully his replacement will be.

So here’s the latest.

The New York Times published a report last night claiming “Trump associates” had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence, which the media in turn breathlessly hyped.

Trying to spin this as definitive proof that Trump was involved in “hacking the election,” they failed to recognize the NYT report proved no such thing:

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

OK, there goes that theory.

The other big story last night from Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon was that the hit job on Flynn was driven by former Obama officials concerned about protecting the disastrous Iran deal:

A third source who serves as a congressional adviser and was involved in the 2015 fight over the Iran deal told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration feared that Flynn would expose the secret agreements with Iran.

“The Obama administration knew that Flynn was going to release the secret documents around the Iran deal, which would blow up their myth that it was a good deal that rolled back Iran,” the source said. “So in December the Obama NSC started going to work with their favorite reporters, selectively leaking damaging and incomplete information about Flynn.”

“After Trump was inaugurated some of those people stayed in and some began working from the outside, and they cooperated to keep undermining Trump,” the source said, detailing a series of leaks from within the White House in the past weeks targeting Flynn. “Last night’s resignation was their first major win, but unless the Trump people get serious about cleaning house, it won’t be the last.”

It’s curious then that the architects of the Iran deal are enthusiastic about the front runner to replace Flynn, former Vice Admiral Robert Harward, including former Obama NSC spox Tommy Vietor:

And the Iran deal must be preserved at all costs:

Our former PJ Media colleague Richard Pollock had the last interview with Flynn before his resignation reporting on what was actually discussed during that phone call with the Russian ambassador:

Flynn insisted that he crossed no lines in his telephone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak: “If I did, believe me, the FBI would be down my throat, my clearances would be pulled. There were no lines crossed.”

Flynn said there was a brief discussion of the 35 Russian diplomats who were being expelled by Obama in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 campaign.

“It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,” Flynn said. “So that’s what it turned out to be. It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.”

It’s important to recall what Flynn was accused of doing:

There has yet to be any evidence that anything in Flynn’s discussion with the Russian ambassador was illegal.

The heavy breathing by the media about supposed Logan Act violations is totally overwrought, as there has never been a successful Logan Act prosecution in two centuries.

But it bears recalling that in 2008 as the Bush admin was trying to negotiate on the Iran nuclear program, those efforts were scuttled by the Obama campaign without any complaint from the media or calls for Logan Act prosecutions.

As our own Michael Ledeen reported here at PJ Media back in 2014:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

It is remarkable that invocations of the Logan Act (e.g. the letter from 47 Senate Republicans to the Iranian leader in 2015) only occurs when it is targeting Republicans.

Another issue coming out of the Flynn affair is the politicization of intelligence.

House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is demanding to know what Flynn’s conversations were being wiretapped. As one of the congressional “Big 8” if there were a covert program targeting Flynn, he would be one of the few to know.

“Any intelligence agency cannot listen to Americans’ phone calls,” Nunes told reporters Tuesday night. “If there’s inadvertent collection that you know is overseas there’s a whole process in place for that.”

He explained, “It’s pretty clear that’s not the case, so then they could have been listening to someone else and inadvertently picked up an American. If that happens, there’s a whole process in place to where they have to immediately get rid of the information unless it’s like high level national security issue and then someone would have to unmask the name — someone at the highest levels.”

“So in this case it would be General Flynn and then how did that happen. Then if they did that, then how does all that get out to the public which is another leak of classified information,” Nunes added. “I’m pretty sure the FBI didn’t have a warrant on Michael Flynn.”

Former House Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King says the intelligence disclosures to the press were clearly illegal.

No wonder then that many in the media are warning about the implications of former Obama officials leaking highly classified signals intelligence intercepts involving U.S. persons.

Eli Lake at Bloomberg:

There is another component to this story as well — as Trump himself just tweeted. It’s very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton’s nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush’s first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

Damon Linker at The Week:

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. “Finally,” they say, “someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!” It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

And John Podheretz at the New York Post:

This information might have come because the US intelligence community has an active interest in the Russian official to whom he talked.

Or it could have come because the FBI had been pursuing some sort of secret investigation and had received authorization to monitor and track his calls and discussions.

If this was intelligence, the revelation of the Flynn meeting just revealed something to the Russians we shouldn’t want revealed — which is that we were listening in on them and doing so effectively.

And if it was an FBI investigation, then the iron principle of law enforcement — that evidence gathered in the course of an investigation must be kept secret to protect the rights of the American being investigated — was just put through a shredder.

Keeping our intelligence-gathering assets hidden from those upon whom we are spying is a key element of our national security.

And as for playing fast and loose with confidential information on American citizens: No joke, people — if they can do it to Mike Flynn, they can do it to you.

But still, there are some who are loving them some deep state totalitarian tactics:

***

***

***

***

***

Report: Obama Loyalists, Led by Ben Rhodes, Orchestrated Flynn Ouster

 

With Flynn leaks, the White House shadow warriors draw first blood

Getty Images

Getty Images

THE HILL, BY KENNETH R. TIMMERMAN, 02/14/17

The rogue weasels have struck. Terrified that Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn would tear them out root and branch, they connived and colluded, anonymously of course, to leak highly-sensitive intelligence information to destroy Flynn before he could destroy them.

This type of operation is not new. I wrote a whole book about it in 2007. I called them, the “shadow warriors.”

Then as now, the shadow warriors excelled at covert operations. After all, they lived in the darkness in a universe of lies.

Their technique “involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.”

As I wrote at the time, this effort “involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates… It was war — but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.”

These are powers and skills most Americans ascribe to our nation’s clandestine intelligence services, right? Don’t we want to have spies at the heart of the Iranian Supreme Leader’s entourage? Or planted next to whichever Kim is ruling his North Korean hermit kingdom? Isn’t that the type of capability we spending more than $80 billion a year to develop?

Alas, none of those very real targets is the target of these rogue weasels. Their target is the president of the United States.

The shadow warriors began leaking even before President Trump was sworn into office.

“According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29… What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote on January 12.

Later, news reports surfaced with more information about the calls, quoting “three sources familiar with the matter.”

But that wasn’t enough. To hound Flynn out of office required a full court press, and so last week the rogue weasels came out of the shadows and all began talking to the same reporters.

By the time these scribes had assembled their indictment (for that’s what it was), they now had heard the story corroborated from “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls,” and who spoke, of course, “on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.”

In so doing, they exposed a sensitive, ongoing signals intelligence operation to intercept the electronic communications of the Russian ambassador. Who cares, right, if your goal is to sabotage the president?

What sets off this particular episode of the shadow warriors is the willingness of former top officials to leave their fingerprints behind.

Call it, payback. It began with Sally Yates, the Obama administration deputy attorney general who the Trump transition team improvidently named as acting attorney general while awaiting the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions — the same Sally Yates who was summarily fired by President Trump when she refused to support and defend his executive order calling for a temporary moratorium on immigration from seven Middle East countries.

Yates “informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States,” the Washington Post wrote on Monday.

The scribes added: “In the waning days of the Obama administration, James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the CIA director at the time, shared Yates’s concerns and concurred with her recommendation to inform the Trump White House.”

Brennan and Clapper knew they were on the way out, and so arguably had nothing to lose by going public. But clearly, both intelligence chiefs also knew they had seeded their agencies with loyalists — career officials who they could rely on to leak sensitive information to them in the future that would embarrass or confuse President Trump.

Government officials take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies — foreign and domestic.

No one says you have to like the president or his policies. But senior officials are expected to serve him and carry out lawful orders.

When domestic enemies rear their head and seek to undermine the president and his lawful orders, that’s called sedition.

General Flynn made the mistake — perhaps inadvertently, as he says – of not telling the truth about these calls to the Vice President. That is a mistake.

But the leakers disclosed to the public — and our enemies — sensitive and classified information. That is illegal.

It’s time for the Attorney General to launch a thorough investigation to unmask the leakers, before the damage gets worse.

Kenneth R. Timmerman was the 2012 Republican congressional nominee for Maryland’s 8th District and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

***

***

Also see:

Law makers look the wrong way while investigating “Zero Dark Thirty” leaks

imagesCAOOSOE2By Kerry Patton

The historical fiction movie “Zero Dark Thirty” depicts the heroic actions of America’s best and brightest intelligence officers and US Special Operators who not only located but killed Osama Bin Laden. Today, a select group of elected officials are outraged over “Zero Dark Thirty.” They have taken an initiative to destroy the careers of US operatives who may have potentially leaked classified information to the movie’s producers.

They are looking at the wrong people to investigate.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s chairwoman, Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), and her team of corrupt “feel-gooders” like Senators McCain and Levin are on the warpath. The Intelligence Committee’s panel has begun a review of contacts between the makers of the film “Zero Dark Thirty” and CIA operatives. Nothing like using intelligence officials as the fall guys when things get ugly.

Before getting too far ahead of the “Zero Dark Thirty” investigation, let’s not forget statements made by key US officials that prove how untrustworthy they really are when it comes to handling classified information.

January 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta conducted an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes.” It was here the world first learned about the life of a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, who once served as a human source to the US intelligence community. Days after the OBL raid, Afridi was tracked down by Pakistani authorities in the Torkham border, apprehended, and approximately four months later in May sentenced to 33 years in prison for treason.

May 2012, the New York Times released an article titled Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will. It quotes White House national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s chief of staff in 2011 William M. Daley, and Obama’s White House counsel Gregory B. Craig. The quotes used by these three men are actual leaks of information linking to classified material.

In June of 2012, Hot Air published an article titled McCain: Top-secret leaks coming from “highest levels” of White House. At the time, McCain and Feinstein were deeply concerned over leaks of information pertaining to US clandestine cyber warfare operations that dealt with Iran’s nuclear developments. He and Feinstein directly attacked the White House for these leaks.

July 2012, Sen. Feinstein was quoted as saying, “The White House has to understand that some of this (classified leakage) is coming from their ranks.” She later added, “There’s one book they can read and they’ll see it very carefully,” alluding to journalist David Sanger’s book that reveals the US and Israel developed a cyber-tool used to interfere with Iran’s nuclear arms program.

Now, let’s go back to the whole” Zero Dark Thirty” controversy.

Hampton Roads had revealed in their September 2012 article titled Feds: Hide Navy SEAL name given to Hollywood that an interview was conducted by Politico staff members. In that interview, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Mike Vickers specifically informed screen writer Boal about the name of someone he could speak with to assist in writing “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Boal was informed by Vickers, “the only thing we ask is that you not reveal his name in any way as a consultant.” Why make such a request? Why tell Boal to hide a name when Vickers himself failed in hiding it?

Vickers knew the individual he referred Boal to either served in or continues to serve in a classified position. The individual’s name was meant to remain secret. Vickers had absolutely no right to divulge this mysterious individual’s name to Boal in the first place. Vickers is guilty for leaking this information to a non-security clearance holding Hollywood screenwriter.

Leon Panetta is just as guilt as Vickers. Remember, he was the first American elitist who divulged information about a human source for the world to know about. Any decent researcher could have put pieces of the OBL raid together to make a decent movie script just based off his statements in that “60 Minutes” interview.

When it comes to enhanced interrogation techniques, Boal and Bigelow didn’t need a classified source. The technique of waterboarding can be observed on YouTube. A million open sources can be found on the internet that reveals the technique was utilized in the early years of the Afghan War. And even Sen. John McCain along with many other elected officials can be observed discussing the technique through Congressional hearings.

Senators Feinstein, McCain, and Levin are going after the wrong people. They are looking for a mid to low level fall guy. They refuse to do a little research and find links that will prove any leak provided to Baol and Bigelow came directly from the highest levels of our government.

This entire investigation is a huge scam and a waste of US tax payer money. Director Kathryn Bigelow and Screenwriter Mark Boal were provided inside material related to the Bin Laden raid. That is known. It is also known that inside material came and was directed from the highest members of our government—not some mid to low level operator.

But just like Benghazi, elected officials have once again proven to the American people how much they despise our intelligence community. They will do anything to cripple the morale of intelligence officers. Sadly, working as an intelligence officer for the US government comes with serious risks—risks from the enemy and risks from the enemy–the second being the enemy from within.

Kerry Patton is the author of Contracted: America’s Secret Warriors order a copy now.

Facebook squelches free speech to protect Obama from Benghazi-gate

Special Operations Speaks:

Today, the founders of Special Operations Speaks PAC – an organization founded by Special Operations veterans dedicated to protecting our forces at home and abroad – released the following statement after Facebook twice censored their meme criticizing President Obama for refusing to save the lives of former Navy SEALS in Benghazi. The meme simply stated, “When Obama called the SEALs, they got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama, they got denied.”  The meme spread virally throughout Facebook’s network and within in 24 hours almost 30,000 people shared and hundreds of thousands viewed the meme.

The meme was taken down for an unspecified violation of Facebook’s terms of Rights and Responsibilities.

“It looks like Obama’s liberal followers in Facebook HQ are terrified of how damaging the Benghazi scandal is for the President. We understand that Facebook can run their site however they’d like, but when they’re trying to quietly squelch opposition to what is a clear leadership failure that resulted in the tragic deaths of some of our nation’s heroes, they deserve the to be called out on it,” said Larry Bailey, CAPT (SEAL), USN (Ret).
“We are paying advertisers on Facebook. It is outrageous that Mark Zuckerburg, founder of Facebook, who worked to elect Obama in 2008, would sell out patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice – all to serve the political ambitions of the man who let them die.”
“Americans across the country deserve the truth about what happened in Libya, and they certainly deserve to know when people who hold the keys to a lot of their online communications are trying to keep that from them,” continued Colonel Dick Brauer, Jr., USAF (Ret).
“This whole affair has become the poster child for liberal arrogance and incompetence – from the President’s complete leadership failure in Libya to the liberal media’s desperate efforts to keep this out of the hands of the American people across the spectrum from broadcast news to social media. I hope they’ll stop this shameful game and stop sacrificing the truth – and Americans abroad – in the name of politics.”

Special Operations Speaks PAC is comprised of veterans, legatees, and supporters of the Special Operations communities of all the Armed Forces and have noted with dismay and deep alarm the recent stream of highly damaging leaks of information about various aspects of America’s shadow war in the overall War on Terror.  Our principles are the same as when we were in active service — Duty, Honor, Country.
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Special-Operations-Speaks/455326401158941
UPDATE: We just received this email from Facebook:

Hello,
A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook. This was mistake, and we sincerely apologize for this error. We’ve since restored the content, and you should now be able to see it.
The Facebook Team

Note: Facebook removed the post two times and suspended our account for 24 hours.We accept their apology but do not accept that it was an innocent mistake. It was clearly a means to protect Obama on Libya.

 
Support SOS: Please click here to support Special Operations Speaks PAC.

Special Operations OPSEC targets Obama for reckless intelligence leaks

By: Dan Spencer at the Examiner

A group of former special operations and C.I.A. officers accuse President Obama of spiking the football — taking credit for killing Osama bin Laden, and recklessly leaking intelligence information about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and other security matters solely to gain political advantage.

“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not.” — Ben Smith, a Navy SEAL

The Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, argues that high level Obama administration’s leaks are damaging U.S. security. They make their case in a new video called “Dishonorable Disclosures: How Leaks and Politics Threaten National Security.”

Watch the very well done documentary video here.

The good folks at Special Operations OPSEC see their mission as stopping President Obama and others, from politically capitalizing on U.S. national security operations and secrets, which allows the special operations and intelligence capabilities to be degraded., and educating the public about the importance and necessity of Operational Security. The video does a good job of doing that.

The Former Special Operations and C.I.A. officers are upset about the “avalanche” of leaks obviously intended to politically benefit Obama:
  • Immediate disclosure of the killing of Osama bin Laden rather than waiting to exploit the information taken by SEAL Team Six.
  • Disclosure and special access to Department of Defense and C.I.A details about the Osama bin Laden operation to Hollywood filmmakers.
  • Disclosure of the unit, the cover name, The aircraft that were used, the number of raiders, and how the team entered and moved around the grounds.
  • Disclosure of details pertaining to the intelligence gathering before the raid, including the identity of the Pakistani doctor who provided information.
  • Disclosure of U.S. and Israeli involvement in the computer viruses which targeted Iran’s nuclear program.
  • Disclosure of a joint U.S./British/Israeli covert operation that planted a spy in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, whose information stopped a terrorist bomb plot against a U.S.-bound airliner.
  • Disclosure of the secret Obama “Kill List.”

OPSEC is not alone in being outraged about the Obama Administration’s national security leaks. Former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey, took Obama to task for his decision to disclose some details of the Osama bin Laden operation:

“By describing certain methods — the name of the unit involved, the kinds of equipment employed, the nature of intelligence collected and techniques of insertion and extraction used in the operation — the President violated a key rule of clandestine work.”

Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has also gone after Obama for controversial leaks of classified information, saying “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.” She was even tougher during an appearance on CNN’s “Situation Room” program:

“What we’re seeing…is an Anschluss, an avalanche of leaks. And it’s very, very disturbing. You know, it’s dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation’s security in jeopardy.”

But nobody summed up as well as former defense secretary, Robert Gates, who blasted the Obama White House’s leaks and told the Obama national security team to  Shut the f— up.”

 ********
This morning on Fox and Friends Geraldo Rivera downplayed the seriousness of the string of intelligence leaks coming out of the White House by saying he is not aware of any deaths occurring as a result. He then went on to  characterize  OPSEC’s recent video objecting to the leaks as purely political.  I doubt he even listened to the OPSEC video all the way through.

Well I’ve got news for Geraldo. The leaks have had profound damaging effects on our national security that transcend mere partisan politics. He should watch Michele Van Cleave’s assessment of the far-reaching effects all those leaks have had.

Michelle Van Cleave is former U.S. National Counterintelligence Executive.

BREAKING NEWS: Special Forces Expose’ Condemns White House

via The United West:

STOP EVERYTHING
WATCH THIS 22 MINUTE EXPOSE’
RIGHT NOW!
≈≈≈
AFTER VIEWING, ASK YOURSELF
“IS THIS TREASON?”
≈≈≈
ACTION
1. WATCH THIS POWERFUL EXPOSE’
2. SIGN UP TO MOBILZE AMERICA
3. WE MUST DEFEAT THE WHITE HOUSE

Dishonorable Disclosures:

Published on Aug 15, 2012 by    

http://www.opsecteam.org/

Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk.
The unwarranted and dangerous public disclosure of Special Forces Operations is so serious — that for the first time ever — former operators have agreed to risk their reputations and go ‘on the record’ in a special documentary titled “Dishonorable Disclosures.” Its goal is to educate America about serious breaches of security and prevent them from ever happening again.
Use of military ranks, titles & photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement of the Dept of the Army or the Department of Defense. All individuals are no longer in active service with any federal agency or military service.

Obama’s Leaks and Their Catastrophic Consequences

by 

The White House was on the receiving end of some well-earned criticism regarding national security leaks from both sides of the aisle. On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized White House operatives for the leaks. “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” she said, even as she absolved President Obama himself. “I don’t believe for a moment that he goes out and talks about it,” she added. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was far more direct. Seizing on Feinstein’s comment, he slammedthe president during his speech at a Veterans of Foreign Wars gathering in Reno, Nevada. “What kind of White House would reveal classified material for political gain? I’ll tell you right now: Mine will not,” he promised.

Romney also assailed the president for his defense cuts. “Don’t bother by the way trying to find a serious military rationale behind any of that, unless that rationale is wishful thinking,” he said. “Strategy is not driving the president’s massive defense cuts. In fact, his own secretary of defense warned that these reductions would be ‘devastating.’ And he is right,” he added.

But he was most incensed about the leaks. Taking note of Feinstein’s admission, Romney observed, “Lives of American servicemen and women are at stake. But astonishingly, the administration failed to change its ways. More top-secret operations were leaked, even some involving covert action in Iran. This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a national security crisis.”

Unsurprisingly, Feinstein attempted to minimize the political damage. Yesterday she released a statement expressing her “disappointment” that Romney would use her remarks to “impugn President Obama or his commitment to protecting national security secrets. I know for a fact the president is extremely troubled by these leaks. His administration has moved aggressively to appoint two independent U.S. attorneys. There is an investigation under way, and it is moving forward quickly,” she stated. “I know we are in a campaign season, but I hope the investigation proceeds without political accusation or interference from anyone.”

Mitt Romney has other ideas. “It is not enough to say the matter is being looked into, and leave it at that,” he contended. “It is unacceptable to say, ‘We’ll report our findings after Election Day.’” After accusing the White House of leaking classified information for political gain, he demanded “a full and prompt investigation by a special counsel” of the breaches. “Whoever provided classified information to the media, seeking political advantage for the administration, must be exposed, dismissed, and punished,” Mr. Romney said in his Reno speech. “The time for stonewalling is over.”

He also addressed Feinstein’s backtracking, saying she had been given “the Cory Booker treatment” by the White House. Booker, the mayor of Newark and a rising star in the Democrat party, first referred to administration attacks on Bain Capital as “nauseating” before changing his tune — after a private meeting with White House officials.

Romney’s call for a special prosecutor echoes the demand made last month a by group of Republican senators who also believe the White House orchestrated the release of intel for political gain, and are equally skeptical the two ostensibly “independent” attorneys appointed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) can conduct an independent investigation. At issue are three separate leaks. The first one involved the details of the Navy SEAL’s successful raid on bin Laden’s compound and other U.S. missions in Pakistan. The second one involved the outing of a British double-agent who thwarted another “underwear” bomb attack. The third leak concerned the details of America’s cyberwar against Iran’s nuclear program.

And despite the president’s contention last month that it was “offensive” to suggest that anyone in his administration is purposely releasing classified information, it is clear that such indignation is at odds with reality. On CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmed that Pakistani Dr. Shikal Afridi helped locate Osama bin Laden. British and Saudi officials were furious about the leaks that exposed their double-agent, with former CIA agent Michael Scheur calling them “despicable” and “tragic.” Robert Grenier, former head of CIA counter-terrorism, contended that British agents must be exasperated “with their American friends, who are far more leak-prone than they.” With respect to the cyberwar against Iran’s nuclear program, an incredibly detailed New York Times story about it was attributed to “current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts.” And as Judicial Watch discovered, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers disclosed the identity of SEAL Team 6′s commander to Hollywood producers making a movie about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The movie’s original release was scheduled for October, just before the election, but was postponed.

The leaks have been incredibly damaging. Dr. Afridi has been sentenced to 33 years in prison for helping us locate bin Laden. British intelligence services, MI6 and MI5 have been compromised. So have Navy SEAL operational methods. Iran now knows more about how we conduct cyber warfare than ever before, and can take steps to prevent it. Enemies have been given unprecedented access to the top-secret processes regarding the way our intelligence agencies conceive and carry out missions. Revealing the identity of agents in the field has compromised their safety, and severely reduced the likelihood of further cooperation by those with the capability to infiltrate terrorist cells, or provide critical information on their operations.

Read more at Front Page